Response to some points on Iran.

"some of your statements bear some truth but you sound very naive. Especially when you say the shah should have been more nationalistic since he was a puppet under control"
Yes he was a puppet. He was first installed in the 1940's as a child, by the British, and again in 1953, by the British and Americans. But you know that puppets come in various shapes and sizes. Most puppets being human don't follow their masters wishes 100%.

Qaddafi was installed by the USA/UK, because they made a hard realistic assessment that King Idris of Libya couldn't survive long in power sandwiched as he was by Socialist Egypt and Tunisia geographically, so in 1969 they engineered a 'coup' and installed their new puppet, who had received military/intelligence training in both the USA and UK, Colonel Qaddafi (Homosexual psychopath with an acute sense of humor).....---the rest is history.

Much has been said about Qaddafi, but I don't personally think he conducted any terrorism against Western targets as he had no real incentive, using his state organs, beyond supporting some 'liberation' movements around the world. He was however for the West and Israel an useful poster child for Arab terrorism, together with MOSSAD run Abu Nidal from the 1970's-----culminating in 9/11 a false flag ops by the usual suspects. The only terrorism he practised was against his own people, to keep himself in power, and again not in the scale of say Saddam Hussain (Megalomaniac psychopath-----Western intelligence sure do pick em). He was sending his wife and children for their education to the UK, as if business was normal--during the nineties.

Qaddafi steered his own policy, and tried to articulate and mark himself out in response to Arab nationalism ignited by Nasser, and things only got worse when the Americans decided to accuse him of terrorism, and they subsequently bombed him in 1986. He responded partly by arming the IRA, against the British for providing the bases for bombing Libya---F-111. Which consequently resulted in the British trying to over throw him using Islamic Fundamentalists in the 1990's----clearly documented---He survived because he was security savvy. Now the British and Americans are friends with him again. So my point is you can have policy differences with your puppet master, and survive in power, EVEN without following the extreme policies of Qaddafi.

The Shah was not security savvy, he was essentially a weak minded playboy with some good intentions for his country, but very naive, and he paid for it. You must always take into account and anticipate the whimsy of your puppet master as a Third World leader who sponsored you into power ----there are a few million waiting in the queue.
Qaddafi is still a puppet of theirs, and his children are educated in that country, and no doubt they have excellent English accents. Mugabe too is their puppet, and he could be killing lawful white farmers driving them out of the country, and of course running the economy into ruin, where at one time it was an effectively managed African nation, with 500,000 whites co-existing peacefully. He can do all manner of ugly things, and say ugly things but he will still remain in power. Whilst his wife regularly visits London to do her shopping, with the impoverished nations money.
So you see a puppet can do all sorts of things, and not follow their master. Perhaps this is an example that the world has moved on, and has become more diverse, nuanced and more complex. We are no longer frozen in the nineteenth century, where a few colonial soldiers taught the grass skirted thing what for.
"or when you infer that Saddam's war on Iran wasn't on behalf of western powers"
I don't infer that it wasn't on behalf of Western powers; Saddam was their puppet, carefully groomed since the early 1960's as new documents and articles show.
This was a classic case of weakening two sides to take them over. But the opportunity for entertaining the idea of attacking Iran in the first place would not have come about if the Shah was still in power, with his armed forces intact. Even puppets have to rationalize sometimes.
Jordan is a puppet state clearly (close to the UK/USA), but does that mean tomorrow they mobilize their little effective army and attack Ba'athist Socialist Syria---of course not---the Jordanian puppet rationalizes his chances.
Saddam the western puppet rationalized in 1980 that with the Iranian armed forces which had disintegrated with 60% desertion, with American/British backing and encouragement, and French backing and encouragement, and Russian backing and encouragement (70%--80% of his conventional arms was Russian), and GULF GCC backing and encouragement, he felt that he had a fair chance. So just after the Islamic Revolution, in 1980 he invaded Iran with 500,000 troops. By this action he basically saved the mullahs, as the mullahs could now rally the country behind them. If the West really wanted to get rid of the mullahs, all they had to do was impose 100% sanctions; and covert ops financing opposition groups----------with propaganda, as in 1953, classic textbook simple overthrow of a regime which is popular with the people------BUT the West wasn't interested in getting rid of the mullahs of Iran then in 1980, whom they had just installed, what their objective was to weaken both countries by providing/supporting poor governments and continued war between the two. With the intention that sometime in the future they could invade as 'liberators'.
"or that the Brits still control Iran,then why would the west want to attack Iran?"
The West is not one united entity. There are considerable policy differences as to what policies to pursue--in relation to international relations. Even within the British elite there are considerable policy differences, between what the Jews of London within 'The City' think and what other elite groups within Britian think. Internationally, what 'the Brits' think is not necessary how 'Washington' thinks, or how the unhinged 'Israelis' think, or how traditionally the French without Sarkozy think. Their perspectives are diverse.
So whilst the British try and maintain their hold over mullah Iran, quite successfully one may add for 29 years, others obviously in the West do not want this status quo. Remember the genocide in Rwanda was the result of competing interests between French intelligence and British intelligence. Around the world you can find examples of competition for control of nations and, and their resources by the West which manifest themselves in local conflict.
Also the fact that the British control Iran is not something they would want to advertise to everybody----because the next logical question from interested parties is who are the agents of the British in Iran, and what are the means of control by which the British exercise power over Iran (organizationally), and how can one compromise these assets to ones advantage.
Britain first became involved in Persia in the early 17th century, and very active politically and economically in the early parts of the 20th century. Let me tell you quickly and very briefly about Tipu Sultan, a character the British empire preferred to forget, and if remembered briefly, than only as another cruel Asian despot. In fact he was an enlightened leader of a medium sized South Indian state called Karnataka. He was an enlightened good ruler effectively ruling a non-Muslim state.
He was an innovator of technology, and was the first in the world to use missiles en masse in the field of war. He with his father fought four wars against the Jewish London based East India company; 1st Mysore war 1767-69; 2nd Mysore war 1780-84; 3rd Mysore war 1790-92; 4th Mysore war 1798-99. He was a major obstacle to British expansion in South Asia, and his little state had been responsible for the death of thousands of colonial soldiers and generals. By the fourth war things were going against him and prior to that he sought the alliance of Revolutionary France, Ottoman Turkey and Afghanistan, but not Persia. Napoleon Bonaparte landed in Egypt in 1798, with the objective of joining forces with Tipu Sultan. The British sunk his navy, so he couldn't sail any where least of all to India, and the Ottoman Turks naturally took exception to their country being used as a staging post without being asked, and having part of their country being treated like an occupation territory------so two possible allies neutralised.
Finally in 1798 the British persuaded the Persian Shah to attack Afghanistan, which prevented the Afghans from joining forces with Tipu Sultan. Yes, as far back as 210 years ago the British were exercising considerable power in Persia. I do not know what influence the British exercised over Nadir Shah of Persia, who effectively ended the Mughal empire, by attacking India in 1737, and ransacking Delhi and massacring its residents.
point being that they have built up a vast network of local Iranian agents---Colonel Reza Khan, the Shah's father was installed by the BRITISH in 1921, as the point man for all of Persia, after the departure of the Russians in the North of the country----He was removed from power by the BRITISH in 1941, and then the BRITISH installed his son in the 1940's, and again in 1953 with American help. Then the BRITISH decided that he outlasted his usefulness, i.e. he was developing Iran too quickly----------Article in Time magazine called Iran the New Japan in the early Seventies (Britain has always been a Islamophobic nation---which has waged cold covert/hot overt wars against Muslim nations-----Iran is another example, using Islamic fundamentalists---cold covert war. Since the advent of Jews in the British power structure in the UK from the middle of the seventeenth century, allowed reentry by Oliver Cromwell, with their prominence in London in 'The City' , and the creation of Israel, this has added to the British Islamophobic dimension)
and so the BRITISH removed the Shah in 1978-79, using the Americans again, through their Rothschild CFR/Trilateral commission agents in the Carter administration.

So now we have two possible scenarios over Iran. The British London Jew model (billionaire criminal Jews from Russia and Israel have been congregating there for a couple years now, the centre of global evil) which means continued mullah misrule, international theatrics by the mullah's and their hand picked 'elected' cronies; human trafficking/slavery from Iran mainly into the Gulf; narcotic epidemics within Iran the like of which Iran has never experienced; Capitol flight into the UK, Canada and other countries from Iran-----$100's billions; the flight of the Middle Class.................or the Israeli Jew neocon model, which means the attack of Iran by Israel and America, possibly with nukes, and the dismemberment of the country into small pieces, in order to facilitate Eretz Israel. Judging by the presidential election nominees in America, that seems to be the direction America is heading.